Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

A topic dedicated to the Type 32 since its a different ship to the Type 31.

Comments from the Deputy CDS today:
“Type 32 is the name give to follow on capability from Type 31. The broad intent is to follow on in the same kind of vein as T31 as a general purpose frigate with open architecture to fulfil a range of roles.

We anticipate work will start on T32 toward the end of this decade. In the time between now and then we will refine the requirement and design and understand the commercial model… The Prime Minister is committed to enlarging the RN’s surface fleet”.
Source

This topic has been labeled News Only meaning only discussions related to news items is permitted. Any extended and more generalised discussions must be held elsewhere. All off-topic posts beyond this notification will be deleted and their author's penalised. Please read the opening post for more information.
See also:

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Singapore

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by BlueD954 »

Type 32 will be a General-Purpose Frigate like the Type 31.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1350/pdf/

Q34

"Type 32 is the name given to the follow-on capability from Type 31. The broad intent is that
that will follow on in the same vein as Type 31, as a general-purpose frigate. It will have open architecture, which will enable it to fulfil a range of roles."

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7182
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SKB »

Or watch the video, recorded 8th December 2020.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e ... 5ceedb633c


User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Jensy »

Small fragment regarding Type 32 from 'Carry On Strategy' (@CarryStrategy) on Twitter:

Image

Depending on how that's read, either they will not be the MCMV replacement, or they will (as part of their wider role). However it does seem that they will be 'frigates', as least as much as the Type 31 is.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1220
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by RichardIC »

Up to five confirmed by Defence and Security Industrial Strategy
• Up to five Type 32 frigates
designed to protect territorial
waters, provide persistent
presence overseas and support
Littoral Response Groups;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... pdf#page52

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1220
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by RichardIC »

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/ ... 4-26a.68.0
In Rosyth, work is ongoing to build the facility needed to build the Type 31s and the subsequent Type 32s
So this isn't confirmation that T32 is going to be a Batch 2 T31 but.....

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Jensy »

RichardIC wrote:https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/ ... 4-26a.68.0
In Rosyth, work is ongoing to build the facility needed to build the Type 31s and the subsequent Type 32s
So this isn't confirmation that T32 is going to be a Batch 2 T31 but.....
Certainly makes it seem somewhat likely if Rosyth is the favoured yard and presumably Babcock the prime.

Also a very subtle manner to announce such a decision/plan but the def sec has prior form. Could go some way to explaining the recent quote describing Type 32 as already "on the drawing board".

Still a little perplexed by the need for a separate type number, especially considering the substantial variation between prior batches of T22, T42 and Leander classes.

No doubt this will get the Absalon fan club excited too.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

RichardIC wrote:So this isn't confirmation that T32 is going to be a Batch 2 T31 but.....
Why build a Frigate Factory for five low cost Frigates? It never made sense, either financially or otherwise.

It will also bridge the gap for Rosyth until the Amphib builds start in the 2030's.
Jensy wrote: No doubt this will get the Absalon fan club excited too.
If RN wanted Absalon, it would have been the T31.

However, although the Arrowhead140 is a large Frigate with a healthy growth margin, many of the mission areas are an inefficient use of space. It's pretty clear Absalon would have added a vast array of opportunities that the A140 simply cannot but Absalon has many negatives also.

Personally I think a hybrid Iver Huitfeildt/Absalon design would be hard to beat for the T32.

- Retain as much AAW capability from Iver Huitfeildt as possible

-Change to hybrid propulsion with Iver Huitfeildt twin engine room setup

- Add Absalon twin Merlin capable hanger and Chinook capable flight deck

- Add Absalon flex deck but replace stern gate with port/starboard side hatches and compartmentalise heavily to improve damage control.

- Add 2150, 2087 and Mk45 or 127/64

Something like this would certainly make BAE sweat.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Jensy »

Picked up on Twitter:



Haven't seen the full context in which the speech was made. However I'd wager that we should probably all set our sights a bit lower on Type 32, and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 360
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Would be nice if the maturing T32 programme finally showed us whether Bofors 40mm was a temporary 'mistake' accepted to get some short-life escorts across the threshold, or, part of a new baseline that will see long term use across the fleet...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jedibeeftrix wrote: a new baseline that will see long term use across the fleet
The smallest autocannons are for anti-surface only, whereas the Bofors 40 would clearly up the game
- getting sufficient arcs of fire for them (as the number carried is likely to be less) is a problem that can be tackled in design, which makes me think that the transition will take a v long time
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:[quote="Ron5" that will result in only Babcock's bidding

There won't be any bidding.

T32 is for Babcock Rosyth
T83 is for BAE Clyde

Simple as that.
The MoD have said there will be a competition for the Type 32s but I share your cynicism.
Where have they said that? My view isn't cynicism its what's happening. Are Babcock going to shut down the new frigate facility at Rosyth after T31?
The MoD has said there will be a Type 32 competition to determine where they will be built. You have said the winner will be Babcock's whatever the other competitors submit. That's called cynicism.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote:
The MoD has said there will be a Type 32 competition to determine where they will be built.
Please provide a link to article or video where the "MOD" say this.

In the defence cmmand paper it says
We will be investing in a renaissance in British shipbuilding through a shipbuilding pipeline.


Not really a pipeline if you don't continue building at Rosyth is it?
We will take a more strategic approach
to industrial capability critical to our strategic and
operational needs. While competition will
remain an important tool to drive value for
money in many areas, and in the supply chain,
DSIS provides greater flexibility in designing
capability and acquisition strategies to deliver
and grow the onshore skills, technologies and
capabilities needed to counter the threats and
exploit opportunities.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4183
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

However, answering a question on 13 April about Type 32 procurement, Minister of State for Defence Procurement Jeremy Quin was less specific.

"The programme and procurement strategy for the Type 32 frigate will be decided following the concept phase, which has not yet been launched," he said.


ref: https://www.forces.net/news/sea-vessels ... now-so-far and elsewhere.

This is what we know. No mention that T32 is exclusively to be built in Rosyth. If it follows how the T31 program proceeded, it WILL be competition. If it follows the T26 program, it will not. But, in this case, rationale for setting up the second frigate-capable shipbuilding industry will disappear? The only rationale was competition. *1

Personally, if BAE Clyde can win T32 contract (may be teamed up with Cammel Laird?), it will open up the possibility to make T83 a cruiser = only 4 to be built (because it will be expensive). If cost rises (which is highly likely), only 3 will be there. Here I think T32 can "save the day" of the era T83 is to be built, which must cover from 2037 (after the last T26) to 2055-2060 (when the first T26 may decommission). Keeping a shipyard for 18-23 years with building only 4 (or 3) escorts (even if it is a "cruiser") is very very very very inefficient.

Note, strategy "continuous shipbuilding" must anyway also consider how to keep the Clyde going on, for sure. If Clyde become not good, then Rosyth will be building T83. But, rationale for setting up Rosyth then disappears, and UK will lose its world leading escort designing team, who succeeded in exporting T26 design worldwide.

*1: Without competition, Babcock will just become the second BAES. And, naturally, without RN/MOD big effort to "know" the details of ship-building and critically reviewing things, the cost will rise. Note, all other nations are taking big effort in "knowing the details of ship building and critically reviewing things" to control the cost of their sole shipbuilder. It is only UK which is "hoping" for competition to solve everything, very unique approach. The problem is, monopoly (or bankrupting of the loser) is also one of the typical outcome of "competition". Anyway, Rosyth must be prepared for losing the T32 bid. And they actually state so = designed to go on without frigate contracts).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Didn't the report into Shipbuilding in the UK mention that competition for competitions sake was a bad idea? Was the fact that competition can force Companies to bid too low to win a contract and then either have to ask for more money during the build of lose money making then financially vulnerable?

We are developing and placing orders for a greater number of naval vessels than we have for a very long time, but such a surge cannot last. Wouldn't it be better to have a consortium of Yards building sections of vessels with one Yard doing final assembly. The latter would have to be larger then either of the current two in order to be able to work on multiple assemblies at the same time, but wouldn't this preserve a core design and build capability with a greater financial foundation that the current plan?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Wouldn't it be better to have a consortium of Yards
Well, you can have cooperation and competition. "The UK Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) naval design partnering (NDP) [...] the submarine and surface ship NDP teams " can work together on concept designs so when the team members are repatriated back to the participating companies, it will mean that all are costing pretty much the same thing (blocks, or all of it) for the later stages.
- or has the surface ships part of that already fallen apart with the FSS process?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
The MoD has said there will be a Type 32 competition to determine where they will be built.
Please provide a link to article or video where the "MOD" say this.

In the defence cmmand paper it says
We will be investing in a renaissance in British shipbuilding through a shipbuilding pipeline.


Not really a pipeline if you don't continue building at Rosyth is it?
We will take a more strategic approach
to industrial capability critical to our strategic and
operational needs. While competition will
remain an important tool to drive value for
money in many areas, and in the supply chain,
DSIS provides greater flexibility in designing
capability and acquisition strategies to deliver
and grow the onshore skills, technologies and
capabilities needed to counter the threats and
exploit opportunities.
The penny has finally dropped. Tom, I do apologize for being so slow in picking up your point. No, there hasn't been any "competition" statement from the MoD just the general shipbuilding strategy statements that future classes will be competed.

A lot of the speculation about the future form of the Type 32's are based on the minster's comments to the defense committee. He said something to the effect that the Type 32's will start where the Type 31's left off. I'm not sure what he meant but many assume that to mean they will be in essence a Type 31 batch II. Hence the Absalon based wishes expressed on this board.

I personally think he meant that they would be subject to a competition with a less restrictive set of terms that would/could result in a better ship. But YMMV.

I don't think you will find anyone in the MoD or Treasury that will admit they are pre-ordained to be built at Rosyth. Even if they are. As an aside, Rosyth might be too busy building FSS & MRSS anyway.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: the minster's comments to the defense committee. He said something to the effect that the Type 32's will start where the Type 31's left off. I'm not sure what he meant but many assume
That is a good starting point: what did the Sphinx (sorry, the Tsar) say?

My interpretation is that he is just referring to a more rounded capability. Perhaps (perhaps not?) being agnostic as to what hull design is best suited to deliver that, within all the other parameters
- as for the 'other' parameters, any association with the LRG(s) would seem to favour the long endurance/ range/ maintenance simplicity of the T31 design (which is close to be them being ideal for forward basing... but not quite 100% the same argument)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

tomuk
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: Rosyth might be too busy building FSS & MRSS anyway.
I think you'll be wrong there. With visits to Harland and Wolff by Boris and Prince Charles and the background of strengthening the union FSS is going to Belfast.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote:I think you'll be wrong there. With visits to Harland and Wolff by Boris and Prince Charles and the background of strengthening the union FSS is going to Belfast.
Would that really be a bad thing?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
tomuk wrote:I think you'll be wrong there. With visits to Harland and Wolff by Boris and Prince Charles and the background of strengthening the union FSS is going to Belfast.
Would that really be a bad thing?
Where did I say it would be a bad thing?

More work for H&W or any other yard would be good. My concern would be how sustainable it would be. After FSS what does the yard do? More Navy work or commercial?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Moved to escorts thread.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
tomuk wrote:I think you'll be wrong there. With visits to Harland and Wolff by Boris and Prince Charles and the background of strengthening the union FSS is going to Belfast.
Would that really be a bad thing?
Yes, terrible. Investment needs to be focused on the few yards that will have long term prospects not one's that will vanish after the next election/contract. In other words, learn from past mistakes. Learn from other countries.

imperialman
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by imperialman »

Could be a variant of T31 as that's being looked at to some degree. Speaking to the Defence Commitee, Babcock CEO David Lockwood said:

"As a variant of Type 31, there are Type 32 concepts to operate exactly as motherships, particularly for autonomous mine hunting."

Post Reply